Dedicated to getting to the truth of things. A Christian since 1984. (Just a Christian, without pigeon-holing into a denomination.) I like people to be free to ask their questions about Christianity and the church. I like to approach faith questions with my brain switched on. A qualified classicist and historian.
Tweet: @colin_bluenose
And I don't look like James Garner. Enough about me already.

Sunday, 15 May 2016

What are they saying about the origins of Islam?

What is secular academia
saying about the origins of Islam?

For most of the history of Islam, what muslims have said
about the origins of Islam has not been much questioned by western scholars:
they had largely left the subject alone, and been content to accept what muslim
tradition says. That left the impression that Mohammed’s life and the origins
of Islam were well-documented. Over recent decades, the question of Islam’s
origins has been of growing interest to secular scholars. Many more in academia
are learning to read Arabic and other languages relevant to these studies and
are reading sources that have never been translated into western languages
before. But a number of things have puzzled them.

Now obviously, these scholars are not muslims. They take a
secular approach, so, inevitably, they will be looking to understand the
origins of Islam in human terms. If they believed that Islam was a product of
divine revelation, they would be on the way to becoming muslims. As they are
not muslims, it is not a surprise to anyone that secular scholars are looking
to understand these things in a non-muslim way. They are using secular methods
of research and evidence analysis and a secular worldview for a secular
historical investigation(s). So what are these academics saying about problems
they have been encountering in trying to understand the origins of Islam?

I will list a few of the talking points below, so that the
general reader can see a quick summary of what is being discussed in secular universities. I
don’t pretend to expertise in this subject, and this is only a very rough
outline for general interest. One might ask - why discuss things that are painful for many muslims? But these are things that our universities are researching, and this blog is about sharing with the general reader things that scholars know. So the alternative question is, why should the general reader not know what scholars are talking about?

Quality of sources

Secular scholars looking to study the life of Mohammed are
bound to look for the earliest texts on the subject. That’s part and parcel of
the historical method. So let’s have a comparison so we can understand what the
problem is here.

Comparison: if scholars are looking at the origins of
Christianity, several letters written by Paul get a lot of attention: this is because
these were written within about two decades of Jesus’ life, and include Paul’s
eyewitness recollections of meeting Jesus’ disciple Peter and Jesus’ brother
James, plus things Paul says as a secondary source on Jesus; and in addition
there are the gospels written within a few decades. All of this sheds some
light on the origins of Christianity. In all, there are dozens of documents
from the first century of Christianity of which we have copies. Nothing I have
said there is normally disputed by secular historians.

So secular scholars turned to Islam looking for earliest
muslim records of Mohammed and of the arab conquests in Mohammed’s day. As you
may know, the arab conquests began in the 7th century. This was
led by Mohammed, who died in 632AD, according to tradition. But if you look for
7th century muslim sources telling the story, there are none. 8th
century sources? – there are none. Nothing until the 9th century, where
we have muslim writings about Mohammed and the origins of Islam. Why the huge
gap in time? Why is it not well-documented by muslim authors nearer the time of
Mohammed?

This problem cannot be put down to the accessibility of
reading and writing in the 7th century. Again for a comparison,
consider the origins of Christianity: in the first century, papyrus scrolls
would be used for writing – and papyrus survives very patchily where physical
conditions allow. It has the survivability of tree bark. Even so, copies were
made of early Christian texts, which ensured the survival of copies to this
present day, copies even of texts from the 50s of the first century. Why has
that not happened in Islam, bearing in mind that the 7th century
falls in an era when books were now widely in use and made of more durable
materials? Were none written? The arab conquerors had possession of many
advanced cities, including bright lights such as Alexandria with a great
tradition of writing and learning, so the resources for making written records
were very accessible. Were no stories about Mohammed and the 7th
century conquests written in that era?

From the Christian west, we have whole books surviving from
the 7th century and earlier. But there are no muslims ones on this matter, except
the Qur’an. To secular scholars, the gap makes so little sense that an
explanation is called for. We have no other muslim book to shed light on this problem,
until the 9th century, apart from the Qur’an.

To be fair, some 9th century muslim texts claim
to contain bits of 7th/8th writing, and there are secular
scholars who are willing to give some weight to that, with due caution because
of their late inclusion. The earliest 9th century biography of Mohammed
claims to be, in part, a rewrite of an 8th century biography. But
what happened to the 8th century version? And what differences does
the rewrite make? And again, why nothing for so long? Christianity exploded
with texts in its first hundred years. Islam has given us no book but the Qur’an
in its first century and more.

Similarly, collections of sayings of Mohammed were not
collected in writing until the 9th century, and many thousands of
sayings were rejected as inauthentic, in fact the vast majority of them rejected
according to muslim tradition. In that light, how robust is a process of selecting authentic sayings made from amongst a vast amount of inauthentic sayings two
centuries after Mohammed died? Certainly, the muslim scholars applied a methodology
of their time to do so. But how can secular scholars be sure that what seemed genuine in the
9th century would have seemed genuine in the 7th century?
And what can a secular methodology make of it now?

(By the way, whenever someone says to me that they are
horrified that Mohammed did/said this or that, I like to ask them how they know
that – they don’t usually know that they are making their judgment assuming a 9th/10th
century writing about a 7th century man to be a true story. And why
are they, as non-muslims, making the assumption that they should believe these
stories, and use them as a stick to beat the reputation of Mohammed with? It is of course relevant material as many muslims hold the canonical
Islamic stories true, but why do non-muslims hold them true? To secular
scholars, they are direct evidence of what some 9th/10thcentury
muslim scholars held to be important about the values of their religion in
their own times, rather than direct evidence of 7th century events.)

Again to compare with evidence for the origins of
Christianity, it would be as if no
Christian wrote about Jesus for the first 100 years or so, and when they did
after a century passed, their works were lost but with excerpts preserved in 3rd
century books. If that were the case, the origins of Christianity would
arguably be so shrouded in mystery as to be almost a lost cause to uncover. Another
analogy: imagine that nobody started writing about the First World War
1914-1918 until today (and that there were no photographs, pictures, etc.), but
then what got written in our day was lost, but excerpts were preserved in a
book in a future century. This would be a problem for historians of the First
World War in the future.

What then can secular scholars make of the origins of Islam?
For primary sources from the 7th century, they have to rely on
little bits recorded by western writers who saw the arabs conquer their towns,
and archaeology (mosques, coins, inscriptions on buildings). Plus later texts that
secular scholars might be prepared to give weight to, perhaps some excerpts of
earlier texts in 9th century muslim texts - used with due caution
because of their provenance. i.e. the context of their inclusion in late texts.

In the secular method, you establish what things are facts
(however few), in addition what things are probable, and then conjecture a
thesis that best accounts for the facts and probabilities that we can count on.

Here are some of the particular findings that secular
scholars are discussing.

Mecca

Academics are raising questions about Mecca that have
serious implications for the traditional narrative that Islam hails from divine
revelation in Mecca:

1) Location descriptions in the Qur’an suit the region of
the ancient town of Petra, not Mecca. Mecca has a very different climate and
geographical features from those descriptions. Mecca is over 1000 km south of
Petra. Why do the Qur’ans descriptions not fit Mecca, and why do they fit
Petra’s region?

2) 7th century mosques are aligned more or less
towards Petra or Jerusalem, not Mecca which is 1000 km south of there. Even when
Muslim tradition says they should point to Mecca, the archaeology points to
Petra or Jerusalem. By the early 8th century, some – not all - point
towards Mecca, but it is generations before all mosques point towards Mecca. Why
is Mecca not the focal point till the 8th century? Why is Petra /
Jerusalem the focal point?

3) Muslim traditions say Mecca was a major stop on trade
routes, and that that accounts for its place in the life of Mohammed and in his
early efforts to establish a religion called Islam. But Mecca is not on any map
dating before the 9th century. And it is only mentioned once in the
Qur’an. Why is that?

So, if valid, that list of problems would have serious
implications for the narrative that Islam hails from divine revelation in
Mecca. No primary evidence from before the 8th century indicates
that the 7th century arabs thought that Mecca was the origin of any
kind of divine revelation. The locations in the Qur’an and the alignment of
mosques suggest to secular scholars that early narratives of Islam were not
structured around Mecca but somewhere else 1000 km to the north, but where does
that leave Meccan divine revelation? These are the sorts of questions secular
scholars are asking, but what might the answers be?

Motivations of the arab conquerors

Secular scholars also raise other problems with the narrative
that arab conquests of the 7th century were motivated by divine
revelation. Some findings of their research:

1) The 7th century records by western witnesses
of arab attacks make no mention of ever hearing the arabs say words such as
Qur’an, Islam, Muslim or Mecca. These words are simply unknown in their
accounts. On that basis, secular scholars get the impression that none of the
arab conquerors in these places were trying to convince people to join a religion
called Islam and become muslims and follow the example of a man from
Mecca and listen to readings from a book called the Qur’an. Western sources do not even
indicate that 7th century arabs were coming to convert them to a religion.
In fact writers of that time found it hopelessly confusing to figure out what
the arabs believed. Why does the contemporary record not show that Islam was a motivating
factor?

2) These 7th century sources say that arabian conquerors called themselves other names, eg Ishmaelites or Hagarites. There is no
evidence in these sources that the 7th century arab conquerors
called themselves muslims. Why is that?

3) In primary Arabic evidence - coins, inscriptions of the 7th century - a Mohammed-centred
narrative only starts to appear in Arabic sources in the 680s AD, when arab rulers put Mohammed’s
name on coins instead of their own faces, under Abd-Al Malik’s reign. But this
is more than half a century after Mohammed is said to have died. Why is that
narrative so late in appearing in the record (whereas arab rulers were content to put their own identities on coins up to that point)?

So, if valid, those concerns would raise concerns about what
events before the 8th century had to do with Islam,
Muslims, the Qur’an,Mecca. or how Mohammed figured in it all. He is said by tradition to have died in
632AD. In light of the absence of early evidence, what do modern readers really know about
the motivations and beliefs of the 7th century arab conquerors?
These are the sorts of questions secular scholars are asking.

Islamic law

What are secular scholars questioning about Islamic Sharia law?
Muslim tradition holds that this is based on the example and sayings of
Mohammed. Questions arise because for example:

1) In the Qur’an, regular prayer is practiced three times a
day (similar to old Christian tradition). But in Islamic law, it is five times
a day (similar to Zoroastrian tradition). Why is the earlier writing, the Qur'an, not in direct line with the later writing of Sharia law? Could Islamic law have been drafted
in part by 9th century literate Zoroastrian converts to Islam,
keeping their own Zoroastrian traditions alive by attributing them to Mohammed?

2) In the Qur’an, the punishment for adultery is whipping.
But in Islamic law it is stoning (similar to Jewish law). Again, why is the earlier writing, the Qur'an, not in direct line with the later writing of Sharia law? Could Islamic law
have been drafted in part by 9th century literate Jewish converts to
Islam, keeping their own Jewish traditions alive by attributing them to
Mohammed?

3) Why does Islamic law have features that are like other
legal codes of towns and cities in the 9th century, rather than
something that makes more sense in the nomadic culture of 7th
century arabs? Again, these are the sorts of questions secular scholars are asking, but the answers are elusive.

The Qur’an

Taking a secular approach means from the outset, of course,
that scholars are looking for human explanations for the book, not a divine
explanation. I’m sure no muslim would expect secular scholars to be doing
anything different. So what are secular scholars asking about the Qur’an?

Their questions include (but are not limited to): who wrote
it? when were its parts written? how much has it changed over the years and
why? and where did its contents come from?

On the last question, some of its sources seem obvious to secular
scholars. For instance, the Qur’an includes the Christian legend of the Seven
Sleepers of Ephesus and other Christian and Jewish literary traditions. Quite a
bit of the Qur’an comprises such traditional stories.

The issue of past changes to the Qur’an is particularly
sensitive for many muslims. Westerners don’t always realise this. The way the
Qur’an is regarded in Islam is quite different from how the Bible is held in
Christianity, where challenges to the Bible’s origins are openly raised and
answered and answers challenged and so on. If anything, muslim reverence for
the Qur’an is a little bit more like Christian reverence for Jesus. Therefore
any questioning of it can be painful for many muslims.

Secular scholars are nevertheless bound to approach the
Qur’an academically as with any other subject, with secular methods of research
and evidence analysis. One issue unfolding is over textual variants. For many
years, scholars were told by muslims that all of the oldest copies of the
Qur’an are identical, and this was not challenged (and this was held to be
evidence of its heavenly qualities by muslims). However, in recent years, muslim
scholars have been more open about publishing data on the oldest copies of the
Qur’an, revealing that they are not identical. Some are significantly longer
than others, and there are many textual variants. Secular scholars have
therefore started to think through what they regard as the evolution of the
text over time. It seems that changes are sufficiently limited to suggest that
the book was held as holy and carefully copied from quite early on, but some
scholars see what they regard as some kind of evolution. Their work is ongoing
and so we cannot assume that they have reached all the conclusions about it
that might be drawn.

Further implications

I have not really done secular scholars – or the historical
sources - justice. I have only written a very sketchy outline of the sorts of
questions academia is asking. There is a great deal more nuance and skill in
their handling of the evidence than you could tell from my very rough outline
here. I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject – not even remotely! -
and am only trying to share with visitors to this blog a rough outline of some
of the questions being asked by secular scholars and why they are being asked.

Their questions are leading scholars to discuss how much
modern notions of Islam have to do with the historical Mohammed who is said to
have died in 632. We can’t say that there isn’t a connection between Mohammed
and the complex religion of Islam. There is just no direct evidence
contemporary with him that there is such a clear connection, and many
intriguing problems that make the connection debatable, when applying secular research
and evidence analysis methods.

By no means have secular scholars arrived at a consensus as
to a complete explanation for the evidence. The narrative of a revised history
of the 7th century is not agreed, not least because of the gaps in
the historical record. Scholars have only been doing this work for a few
decades. The origins of Christianity have been subjected to this kind of
scrutiny by secular scholars a lot longer (hundreds of years).

There are various suggestions of a thesis that best accounts
for the early evidence. A successful thesis would be an attempt to try to
answer questions like these:

If Islam were thought by scholars to be substantially forged
together under arab rulers of the 8th and 9th centuries,
then why did those rulers feel this need to forge a new religion anyway and to
hold all of their empire to this one religion, from Spain to India? And why
forge this religion in a way that makes it stand in opposition to the Byzantine
empire with its empire-wide Christianity?

And if the Qur’an and early mosques indicate a narrative of
divine revelations in the region of Petra or somewhere near, why did muslims
shift the focus of the religion 1000 km south to Mecca?

And what about Mohammed’s biography which arrived in the
world in written form so relatively late? Was it delayed by problems? What
problems? Why could not the literate cities conquered by the arabs provide the
resources to produce one? Could it be that some of the stories about Mohammed
were created in the 8th or 9th centuries to give context
to the Qur’an’s divine utterances which don’t have a context on their own (as
historian Tom Holland ponders)? Could it be that known stories of Mohammed were
not necessarily consistent with the development of Islam in the 8th
and 9th centuries, and that potential biographers were not sure what
to say at first (the theory of some Christian apologists)? I don’t have the
answers. Secular scholars will be working on these questions for many years to
come.

If such secular ways of thinking about the subject were more
widespread in muslim communities, this would of course raise particular
problems for fundamentalist versions of Islam, which are predicated on knowing
exactly what Mohammed did, and said, as a 7th century muslim
reciting the Qur’an and spreading Islam. Some muslims who are less literal
about the 9th and 10th century claims about Mohammed
would find these sorts of questions more accessible to discuss. It should by no
means be assumed that these sorts of difficult problems would mean the same
things to different muslims in different forms of Islam. However, nor should it be assumed that the work of non-muslim scholars is a panacea for extremism, nor a medicine for a religion of which they are no part. Faith issues are more complex than that, as the scholars themselves would acknowledge, I'm sure. The endeavour of secular historians is to write good history, not a political solution to the world's problems.

Where might these scholars' endeavours lead for those in Islam for whom the work of such secular scholars is of interest? I don't know if it would ever have practical implications. Stretching one's imagination: is
it possible to imagine that some - any? - muslims would follow an Islam in which the focus has shifted away from Mecca,
towards Petra or Jerusalem?; where it is no longer dogma that Mohammed is
necessarily the one who first recited everything in the Qur’an?; and where it is no
longer held that we know enough about Mohammed to make what he may have said
and did into the rulebook for the life of a muslim?; where it is no longer held
that the arab conquests of the 7th century were done in the name of
Islam? I do not know if that kind of Islam is possible. I do not have the
answers to the questions. For many muslims this would no doubt be very
difficult; while for other muslims it may not have any practical impact on
their lives, if perhaps unsettling; while for others the debate may be an interesting quest for truth that
they could join in with. But to what degree could it happen in the foreseeable
future? It is not for me to say. I am only imagining as a non-muslim, as an outsider trying to understand these things, what possibilities the future might hold
in store, and I write these questions in humility knowing that others will have
a much better idea of what is possible.

If you want an accessible read on these questions – rather
than a dense academic tome - Tom Holland’s book In
the Shadow of the Sword is very readable. If you don’t have time to read
it, Tom Holland’s related Channel 4 documentary is online here.